Columbus Day? Let's change it to Mayflower Pilgrims Day

[DudleySmith]

A little on Native history and their own wars, as best as can be researched with current evidence.

Huron

A lot of small tribes only exist today because of white interference in their inter-tribal inflicts. The Osage were on the edge of extinction by the Sioux imperialists when out of desperation they began firing on river boats hoping to force he U.S. to make a 'treaty' with them and give them protection from both the Sioux and Comanche, both then at the height of their power and territory controlled.

 

[Mushroom]

The Osage were on the edge of extinction by the Sioux imperialists

Even that is not really accurate.

The Lakota were not "Conquerors" as most would think of them, as they never really settled anywhere. And they were on a long slow trek for over around 400 years before they were finally pinned down in the Dakotas. In reality, they were more like a slow moving Mongolian tribe.

We know they came from the middle Mississippi, from around where Mississippi-Arkansas is today. They were one of many parts of the Mississippian Culture, and when that group collapsed in around 1475 they started their long and slow journey. First heading North, until they hit the Great Lakes sometime around 1550. They lived there for a while, but were already an antagonistic and warlike group and came in constant conflict with the Anishinaabe, where they earned the nickname "Sioux" or "Little Rattlesnakes" for their untrustworthiness. After years of conflict they instead turned West, and continued their journey, meeting and fighting every tribal group they came across.

But the thing is, they never once settled anywhere. For some reason they simply moved in a direction until they could not move that way anymore, then turned and continued moving. Making war on any groups they met, and never trying to settle down. If not for Europeans, they would likely be somewhere around the Washington-Oregon coast around now, and likely turning South. Eternal nomads, very much like the Mongols were.

 

[DudleySmith]

Even that is not really accurate.

The Lakota were not "Conquerors" as most would think of them, as they never really settled anywhere. And they were on a long slow trek for over around 400 years before they were finally pinned down in the Dakotas. In reality, they were more like a slow moving Mongolian tribe.

We know they came from the middle Mississippi, from around where Mississippi-Arkansas is today. They were one of many parts of the Mississippian Culture, and when that group collapsed in around 1475 they started their long and slow journey. First heading North, until they hit the Great Lakes sometime around 1550. They lived there for a while, but were already an antagonistic and warlike group and came in constant conflict with the Anishinaabe, where they earned the nickname "Sioux" or "Little Rattlesnakes" for their untrustworthiness. After years of conflict they instead turned West, and continued their journey, meeting and fighting every tribal group they came across.

But the thing is, they never once settled anywhere. For some reason they simply moved in a direction until they could not move that way anymore, then turned and continued moving. Making war on any groups they met, and never trying to settle down. If not for Europeans, they would likely be somewhere around the Washington-Oregon coast around now, and likely turning South. Eternal nomads, very much like the Mongols were.

Rubish. They were territorial, as was any tribe; they need hunting grounds and fought to keep other tribes out of them. Northern tribes warred over the booming fur trade with whites, fighting for monopolies. Just because they didn't have cities in the European sense didn't mean they were immune to greed and domination. The Mongols didn't have cities, and they were most certainly imperialist and expansionist. They tenede to return again and again to good regions. In act tribes that relied on hunting and forage needed far more territory for survival than farming tribes did.

 

[Mushroom]

They were territorial, as was any tribe; they need hunting grounds and fought to keep other tribes out of them.

To them, the only territory that mattered was where they were at that time. They never settled down anywhere in over 400 years of wandering.

Look behind them, from the Dakotas to Lake Superior, then follow the Mississippi south to where they started. Notice, there is no "Lakota Territory" behind them. Think of them as a wandering biker gang. They will indeed "take over a town" while they are there. But once they pack up and move to the next town, it no longer matters. Because they are not there anymore.

One can not be even considered "territorial" if the only "territory" that matters is where their butt is planted at that time. That was how all nomadic tribes were, from Asian and Europe to Africa and in the Americas. Hell, they did not even have the concepts to make "Imperialism" possible in the first place. The very concept that one could "own the land" was completely foreign to them. They only owned where they were at the moment, no longer. When they left, it was not theirs anymore.

They were nomads, and moved from place to place and setting up settlements nowhere. Like the Huns, the Mongols (other than the group that followed Genghis because he had a crazy urge to conquer China), the Bedouin, the Romani, and any other group of nomads.

There are still Bedouin in the Middle East today. And even most of the nations in the areas they wander pretty much ignore them. They are free to cross most borders however they wish, and belong to no nation. You can still see their caravans traveling the desert, and just setting up where they want. And many groups of Mongols still live the same way.

Good luck trying to tell a Bedouin or Mongol that they "own" the land they are in, or where they were last month. The problem is, you simply can not seem to comprehend a lifestyle that does not require one to own the land they are on.

 

[DudleySmith]

To them, the only territory that mattered was where they were at that time. They never settled down anywhere in over 400 years of wandering.

Look behind them, from the Dakotas to Lake Superior, then follow the Mississippi south to where they started. Notice, there is no "Lakota Territory" behind them. Think of them as a wandering biker gang. They will indeed "take over a town" while they are there. But once they pack up and move to the next town, it no longer matters. Because they are not there anymore.

One can not be even considered "territorial" if the only "territory" that matters is where their butt is planted at that time. That was how all nomadic tribes were, from Asian and Europe to Africa and in the Americas. Hell, they did not even have the concepts to make "Imperialism" possible in the first place. The very concept that one could "own the land" was completely foreign to them. They only owned where they were at the moment, no longer. When they left, it was not theirs anymore.

They were nomads, and moved from place to place and setting up settlements nowhere. Like the Huns, the Mongols (other than the group that followed Genghis because he had a crazy urge to conquer China), the Bedouin, the Romani, and any other group of nomads.

There are still Bedouin in the Middle East today. And even most of the nations in the areas they wander pretty much ignore them. They are free to cross most borders however they wish, and belong to no nation. You can still see their caravans traveling the desert, and just setting up where they want. And many groups of Mongols still live the same way.

Good luck trying to tell a Bedouin or Mongol that they "own" the land they are in, or where they were last month. The problem is, you simply can not seem to comprehend a lifestyle that does not require one to own the land they are on.

A lot of sophistry, no real refutation. The fact is the Sioux controlled a whole lot of territory, and migrated along mainly the same seasonal routes, and they drove off or exterminated any other tribes who got in their way or hunted on their territory. So did every other tribe who could get away with dominating their neighbors, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, North ,South, or Central America, the same story holds there as well.

 

[Mushroom]

The fact is the Sioux controlled a whole lot of territory, and migrated along mainly the same seasonal routes

Actually, no they did not.

First of all, they did not "migrate" at all. Or do you think that they moved each year from the lower Mississippi to the Great Lakes, then out to the Dakotas and back each year?

No, you are thinking of the rest of the tribes, like the Crow, Blackfoot, etc, etc, etc. Those tribes stuck to the same areas for hundreds of years, and they did indeed stick to a normal course of migration. The Lakota were not migrating, they were moving. That is a huge difference, not sophistry. The Lakota were not birds migrating between summer and winter areas. They never settled anywhere, and were moving West. Not moving back and forth between different areas.

And their territory was really not all that big. And yes, I know that most "maps" tend to show their territory reaching back to Iowa. However, that is not accurate and shows their past movement. The main tribe was in the Dakota-Wyoming area, but the farthest forward groups were actually already in Idaho. The Black Hills were not even theirs, they had kicked the Crow out of there right before the Europeans arrived.

But I guess you believe in a weird kind of imperialism. Where taking over an area of land then abandoning it means building some kind of empire.